It was a rhetorical question. I asked when and where. I didnt expect an honest answer from you of in your own mind and frequently. But it demonstrates the point without an answer.
Again you merely show you cannot respond. The profit role of unemployment in capitalism ensures your position is merely based on ignorance of the nature of the paradigm
????? Italy, Spain and France have the most worker owned firms. And their #s are only shrinking. If they were more productive, one would expect they would dominate the market.
I'm familiar with the "paradigm". Your position is based on ignorance of the nature of the real world. The real world can never be as productive as one operating in your mind, according to your "paradigm". It can be as good as you want to imagine it to be.
Clearly you're not as you've made statements even inconsistent with the orthodox analysis. Another silly comment. The use of unemployment as a discipline device arguably first came from heterodox theory. However, its been embedded within orthodox analysis because its required to understand actual unemployment trends.
Wrong! The productivity advantages are an empirical fact. However, there is a distinction between productivity and profitability. Once you have market power considerations then there is no market correction (with the efficient firm surviving at the expense of those characterised by management slack)
My understanding of incomplete contracts is the inability of employers monitoring workers efforts, and hence shirking model should be the most appropriate one in connecting incomplete contracts with efficient wage theory. Market failure has to do with adverse selection whereas labor turnover focus on asymmetric transaction cost.borne by the business. Fancy theories aside, how would central planning solve these problems better than private market contracts innovation and technology improvement to overcome asymmetric information? Capitalism has a bottom up approach to deal with all these imperfection. We might have decentralised internet banking and E-bay style labor market in years to come.
The imperfect contracting fits well with the labour turnover model (particularly when adding in general training). It doesn't fit well with shirking. First, except in terms of piece work, there is no notion of a complete contingent based compensation (and we wouldn't want one as we cannot necessarily distinguish between 'bad luck' and effort). Second, as I mentioned, the efficiency wage only operates because of the macroeconomic consequences (via the reserve army). Nope. Labour turnover is a basic example of imperfect contracting (transaction costs would only kick in if, for example, it was possible to derive a seeming ex-ante perfect contract but ex-post renege opportunities then kick in) Who has referred to central planning? I certainly haven't. Capitalism isn't bottom up. It creates a damaging class structure that restricts opportunity
Century old Marxian idea that has little relevence to modern day conflict. The left and some right cry about executive bonus in U.S. which happens to be a case of rent seeking wage earners well exploiting corporate governance failure. The same applies to many "ambulance chasing" lawyers and cartel like behavior of medical community in U.S. Blue collor workers were here ripping off their working class comrades oversea in developing countries for as long as possible by protective legislation until businees have and continue to threaten to move oversea in these 2 decades.
The social immobility shows otherwise. Its also quite inappropriate to suggest that its Marxist specific. Take something as simple as the underclass. We don't need to utilise lumpen proletariat ideas. We can refer to the empirical evidence and the difficulty in finding the phenomenon. Those countries that have such a problem therefore have more damaging class restrictions (uniting the US with the limeys)
Your hopelessly trapped in your theory and analysis and it is only required to define your criticism of capitalism.
Again you're making no sense. The adoption of the efficiency wage hypothesis reflected the need to understand actual unemployment trends.
Efficiency wage analysis is a critical component of the neoclassical synthesis, also known as mainstream economic thought, who generally praise the fundamentals of capitalism, although may be critical of idiosyncratic matters. The use of efficiency wages under the neoclassical synthesis typically looks at how they increase productivity, leading to market failure and unemployment. Given his heterodox approach, Reiver may look at such from different perspectives.
Seems to be your typical neo Marxist. Critical theory in the tradition of the Frankfurt school of thought. Believing that they can ape capitalism in a world of theoretical perfect competition if only economic decisions were left to smart people such as themselves instead of individuals
At least you're consistent with your error making. I'm no Marxist. The problem here is that you don't understand the economics required to respond with any validity
And if value added is measured by the difference in the cost of inputs and the price the goods are sold for, the more productive firm will be more profitable.
Nope, as profit reflects economic rent and therefore labour underpayment is key. We see a similar phenomenon with unionisation, where unions increase productivity but reduce profitability (with rents redistributed back to workers)
The cost of "labour" is a cost of one of the inputs, Einstein so I'm not sure of your point? Other than to confirm my point. A worker owned factory could be incredibly productive in producing output, but if no one buys their product because they paid themselves too much and using cost plus pricing their product costs too much, they have neither a productive or profitable business.
Neo-Marxism is irrelevant to the discussion of efficiency wages. Efficiency wage analysis is found throughout the economics profession. As I said, it is a component of the neoclassical synthesis, you know, that agreement between the neoclassical school of economics and Keynesian economics that dominates mainstream economic thought. Adherents are usually unabashed in their defense of the fundamentals of capitalism, yet are highly diagnostic in their idiosyncratic assessments. They analyze efficiency wages as increasing productivity, leading to market failure and unemployment.
